On 1/28/11 3:10 PM, Garth N. Wells wrote: > > > On 28/01/11 14:06, Harish Narayanan wrote: >> On 1/28/11 2:47 PM, Harish Narayanan wrote: >>> On 1/28/11 1:37 PM, Anders Logg wrote: >>>> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:03:15PM +0100, Anders Logg wrote: >>>>> I've prepared drafts of the copyright consent forms: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.fenicsproject.org/pub/copyright/forms/ >>>>> >>>>> Take a look and let the list know if you have any comments. >>>>> If we find that the documents look ok, we can start sending out >>>>> requests for signed consent forms. >>>> >>>> I haven't heard any objections to the design of the consent forms so I >>>> assume everyone's onboard. I will start sending out requests for forms >>>> shortly. >>> >>> The documents seem reasonable, except that I have one concern over the >>> (broad) scope. What if a contributor is OK with LGPL for some FEniCS >>> components, but doesn't see the purpose (or is not happy with, for >>> whatever reason) for other components. >>> >>> I understand the rationale behind LGPL for core components (DOFIN, FFC >>> etc.) but not, for e.g., FEniCS Apps. >> >> I am going to further my query. Probably convoluted, but here it goes: >> >> What constitutes a FEniCS app? Is it any application written based on >> components of the FEniCS project? Is it an application that gets listed >> on the FEniCS web site? And if one is going to force the license of the >> app, does that not defeat the purpose of LGPL'ing core FEniCS components[1]? >> > > My take is that an App gets to hang itself under the 'FEniCS App' > banner, and a qualifying requirement for that is a GPL/LGPL license. If > it's proprietary, it can't be a FEniCS App.
OK, that makes sense to me. Harish _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fenics Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fenics More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
